Posted by Marc Hodak on June 18, 2008 under Revealed preference | 
Bachelor congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is prompting all manner of innuendo from his proposal to give fashion models a special visa category. The editors must have worked into the night to craft this line:
Weiner introduced his proposal in the House late last year which has not yet been scheduled for a vote, though it was recently referred to the Committee of the Whole, where less rigid rules allow bills to be passed quicker.
Now, I’m actually in favor of this proposal for other than the obvious reasons. Weiner argues seductively for opening up our borders to enjoy the bountiful fruits of commerce. But why is that logic limited to fashion models, and not scientists and entrepreneurs, even if they don’t look quite so.
HT: Reason
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 17, 2008 under Politics |
Those were the words of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) yesterday regarding the XM-Sirius plan to lease 4 percent of their radio spectrums, or 12 channels, for programming run by minorities and women. Congressman Cummings and the rest of the Black Caucus believes that number should be 20 percent. And where did they get that 20 percent figure from? The WaPo reporter helpfully explains:
[Rep. G.K.] Butterfield [(D-N.C.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus’s working group on satellite radio] said he got the idea for the 20 percent set-aside for minority-owned companies from Georgetown Partners, a minority-run private-equity firm based in Bethesda, and its managing director, Chester Davenport.
The firm, which has invested in wireless and media companies, objected last year to the merger, arguing that a monopoly could limit opportunities for minority programming.
But Davenport said that if regulators give the marriage a green light, the combined company should be required to turn over some channels to a minority-controlled entity. He said he hoped Georgetown Partners would fill that role, making it a competitor to the merged company.
But of course.
Lest anyone is naive enough to believe that Georgetown Partners is patiently waiting to jump on a major investment opportunity, grow up. Georgetown has already invested $420,000 where it counts– in lobbying. Shortly after the XM-Sirius merger was announced, Georgetown began to ramp up its spending. They were the largest campaign donor to Cummings’s Maryland colleague on the Black Caucus, Albert Wynn. Chester Davenport has personally spread $5,600 among Black Caucus members, including Chairman Butterfield, as well as over $28,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, all in the last year.
Butterfield said that black caucus members planned to meet today with Karmazin and Nate Davis, chief executive of XM. “We’re going to close the door and have a very honest and open dialogue about the merger,” Butterfield said.
If it’s truly honest and open, it will sound something like this:
Read more of this article »
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 16, 2008 under History |
In 1776, McCullough creates an interesting portrait–snapshot, really– of George Washington, drawn largely by the way he was viewed by his contemporaries. The book also illustrates was how remarkably difficult it is to judge leadership by any single measure, or even a collection of them.
In McCullough’s story, Washington reveals a glaring weakness in military strategy, a weakness revealed both in the qualitative views of men who could observe him, as well as in poor results on the battlefield. Washington’s main strength appears to be his luck, and the fact that he superbly, consciously, looked and acted the part of a leader. Today, few would put someone like Washington at the head of an army, and fewer yet would keep him there after the string of losses he suffered after Boston. Yet, Washington was the right man to lead the Revolution.
What McCullough left out (explained well in Flexner’s book) was how tenuous was the faith in Washington held by the Continental Congress by the end of 1776. Washington, in fact, barely survived a political conspiracy to oust him. (He was extremely lucky that way, too.) Washington was thus able to keep his job, and generals like Nathanial Greene who shared Washington’s dismal record on the battlefield. Greene would eventually prove instrumental in driving Cornwallis to his last stand at Yorktown, and Washington, of course, would lead that final siege to victory. Nobody could have predicted it.
Read more of this article »
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 15, 2008 under Politics |
That was pretty much the bitter rejoinder on the Irish EU vote from the former Belgian prime minister, who helped draft the original EU constitution that went down in France and Holland.
The defeat of the original constitution led to the newer, slightly stripped down version that the Irish rejected on Friday. The main differences between the Lisbon Treaty and the previously rejected EU constitution appeared to be (a) changing the name from a “constitution” to a “treaty,” and (b) preventing as best as possible its submission to a popular vote.
Unfortunately for the Eurocrats, the Irish constitution required such a vote, so at least their people had a voice in the matter.
Let’s be clear about why the Lisbon Treaty went down in flames: The people couldn’t understand it. The treaty comprised 356 amendments to the existing EU charter, as well as various other protocols, declarations, and other gobbledygook that made sense to no one outside of Brussels. So, the Irish people were forced to look to their leaders for an indication. But they couldn’t–or wouldn’t–explain what it meant. In fact, their leaders had not read it either. Instead, the people got an earful from their elected officials, and those from the rest of Europe, telling them how they had to vote. The people weighed their trust in these endorsements, and voted “No.”
The vanity of politicians is that since the people vote for them, the people must like them and believe in them. They forget that most people regard elections as an unpalatable choice.
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 14, 2008 under Unintended consequences |
…because they are being helped.
Here is a more recent example of getting what you pay for, in this case FEMA supporting Katrina victims (yes, they’re still out there):
The scorching heat puts many at the Quality Inn poolside, but for Gwenester Malone, she chooses to beat the heat by setting her thermostat to sixty degrees. Malone’s room for the past three months, along with three meals daily, have all been paid for by taxpayers.
“Do you work?” asked NBC 15’s Andrea Ramey.
“No. I’m not working right now,” said Malone.
Malone says she can’t drive and it’s too hot outside to find work within walking distance. “Since the storm, I haven’t had any energy or pep to go get a job, but when push comes to shove, I will,” said Malone.
HT – Instapundit
Read more of this article »
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 13, 2008 under History |
I’m finally onto McCullough’s 1776. One of the great things about this book is that it looks at the Revolution from both sides, quoting liberally both British and American soldiers who left a record. This gives the reader a bit more complete sense of what was driving the events.
Of course, a historical book can’t win a Pulitzer if it doesn’t tell a story, and this one is no exception. Having just read about the Battle of Brooklyn as a story, with intent leading to action, even with unpredictable outcomes, simply reminded me of how chaotically history can actually unfold.
Read more of this article »
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 12, 2008 under Unintended consequences |
Here is an interesting idea: After a presidential election, each state gives its electoral votes to the person with the largest number of popular votes.
Several states have apparently already passed measures that would do this. These measures would kick in when a collection of states totaling over 270 electoral votes–the number needed to elect the president–have approved them.
The intended effect is to get candidates to campaign beyond the “swing” or “battleground” states. Today, candidates nearly completely avoid those states where polling shows a foregone conclusion. There is no point for Obama or McCain to spend much time in Illinois or Arizona before the general election. By promising to award one’s electoral votes based on national results, the states would be encouraging the candidates to spend time in more states, which might also have the benefit of attracting more voters to the polls, for those who get a swell out of that sort of thing.
Every proposal draws its critics:
Gary Gregg II, director of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville in Kentucky and a fan of the Electoral College, agrees that the National Popular Vote would change the way candidates campaign, but not in a good way. Candidates would go where most of the votes are, namely cities. “Rural areas would never see a presidential candidate. Small states would never see a presidential candidate,” he said.
As if candidates today spend any time in rural New York or rural Alabama. Rural Florida, maybe.
Gregg also predicted chaos if there were a close election and candidates challenged the vote count. “You would have the [2000] Florida recount replayed across the country … It would be a very ugly situation.”
Easy. Each state can simply say that if the two highest candidates get within a single percentage of each other, the state’s electoral votes would revert to the candidate who won that state. That would contain any problem to whatever Florida might crop up again. See? Mechanism design isn’t always that hard.
A critic from the Cato institute asks:
Do people in Maryland know under the National Popular Voter system, that their vote may go to someone who didn’t win their state?
I can assure you from extensive personal experience that voters in Maryland don’t have a clue. And they still won’t even when this circumstance comes up, because they will be watching the popular vote on TV with the rest of us, knowing that this mechanical fact would make no difference to the outcome, except for a few newspapers looking for a story.
Predictably, where many people stand on this proposal depends on where they sit. Republicans are against this if they believe that it will benefit Democrats, and vice versa. Some people, I am shocked to learn, care more about outcome than process.
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 11, 2008 under Executive compensation |
Well, that was the headline, anyway. Actually, he is simply backing the “Say on Pay” bill, which will require a shareholder vote on CEO pay and severance. Because, you know, democracy works so well in producing optimal outcomes.
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 9, 2008 under Patterns without intention |
No, I’m not being facetious. Regular readers (thank you my fine few dozen!) would know that I am not a big fan of Congress’s work. In fact, it’s fair to say that if Congress passes legislation, I’m almost certain to think our country is worse off for it.
So why would I rationally and sincerely consider Congress a “well-oiled machine?” Because, as an institution, as unpopular and frighteningly wasteful as it seems to those of us on the outside, it is extremely functional at serving the values of those on the inside.
How can one reconcile this graph…
With this one?
One way is to view our Federal government as a broken business model that simply cannot go out of business.
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 8, 2008 under Politics |
I think a McCain-Obama roadshow is a great idea. The media will hate it because it greatly reduces their starring role, wherein they shake the candidates around and upside down in order to collect any sound-bites or “gotcha” moments that might fall out. What we’ll get, instead, is a discussion. Heck, the networks may not even show up for that.
If they somehow end up in 10 traditional debates/sound-bite war, I will begin to campaign for choosing our president by lot. Seriously.
